5 ms·
In his Long Now talk and elsewhere, Saul Griffith makes the claim that because of restrictive zoning laws, solving climate change on a personal level is actuall
by Glench 7y ago
In his Long Now talk and elsewhere, Saul Griffith makes the claim that because of restrictive zoning laws, solving climate change on a personal level is actually illegal (because of solar panel installation and wood-burning stove restrictions): http://longnow.org/seminars/02015/sep/21/infrastructure-and-climate-change/ http://longnow.org/seminars/02015/sep/21/infrastructure-and-...
That's a strong claim, but I like that Saul is talking about changing local building laws to make green infrastructure a possibility.
- pascalxus 7y agoYes. And by making it illegal for people to build living spaces near Work, they're contributing greatly to global warming because it increases commute lengths. Imagine a 4 mile commute vs 40 mile commute, the 40 miles we commute here in the bay area is 10 times more pollution!
- Consultant32452 7y agoWorse than that, if you were only 4 miles away you might not use a car at all. You could more reasonably ride a bike or take public transportation.
- dmix 7y agoWhy do we have clearly divided zoned areas for work and residential again? What era did that start? I understand if it was a pig slaughterhouse or night club or something like that. But even the early 1900s had office buildings, law offices, various small shops, and other quiet firms. Seems like a heavy-handed approach in retrospect. If anything the laws should be related to the type of business or externalities (noise, smell, etc) it produces rather than on strict residential/work/industrial lines.
- Symmetry 7y agoProbably 1916 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Zoning_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Zoning_Resolution
- rhacker 7y agoWe should set it up so that it is based on air, water, noise pollution zoning: Law offices next to (or inside a single family house should be OK). However, if the law office attracts 50 cars per day, then obviously they are going to break noise/air pollution requirements. Similarly there's no way for a quiet old couple that wants a quiet neighborhood to stay quiet unless the zoning allows for it. A lot of people would consider a Q1 zone anti-familyist but the REASON such a zone would be desireable is that's what rich people pay for - they only want to hear their own noise - so they end up buying 7 lots around their mansion. We shouldn't make the need to want absolute peace and quiet a price but instead just let that group of people that want the same thing live next door to each other. Instead we encourage people to buy rural properties in a forest. Sorry for that aside but zones for quiet level, air and water pollution levels - but traffic induced by business should be considered as part of the zoning, and then get rid of the residential / commercial separation - just focus on the pollutions.
- saltminer 7y agoI think the big problems are parking minimums and a lack of mixed-use zoning in many areas. Walkable areas encourage density, which helps reduce noise and air pollution.
- dylan604 7y agoBecause in the West, people were tired of living on top of each other and wanted their space.
- imtringued 7y agoThat didn't stop them from working on top of each other.
- jseliger 7y agoWhy do we have clearly divided zoned areas for work and residential again? What era did that start? If you really, really want to know: https://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulation/dp/155844288X?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957 https://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulatio...
- dmix 7y agoI want to know everything, it’s just a matter of prioritization.
- souprock 7y agoI much prefer my traffic-free 0.9 mile commute. Previous jobs have been 4.5, 10.5, 4.3, 4.4, and 8.7 miles. My secret is very small cities. They generally have suburban density, but aren't technically suburban because there isn't a rush-hour commute to a larger city. These places are also affordable. For example, median houses (typically about 1500 square feet on 0.25 acre) go for about $150,000 in Melbourne, FL. That 40 mile commute is definitely a choice.
- pascalxus 7y agoplease convince my employers and all other employers to move to those small cities. i don't think employees have much power to decide where they can work: employers have all the bargaining power. Why else would any company set up shop in places like SF, Palo alto, penninsula, etc?
- tropo 7y agoIt wouldn't matter if people could build living spaces near work. They'd still commute. People change jobs without changing homes. There are various reasons: rent control would be lost, property tax control would be lost, kids would need to attend different schools, spouse would need a job in the same location, real estate agents eat 6% of home value, etc. So it works for a person's first job, assuming a 1-income household. After a few years, there is a job change, and then never again is work close to home. If you want to tackle commute distances you need to deal with all the reasons people refuse to move. You can't count on people staying with the same employer forever.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoSeveral states have laws that override local law as it relates to solar panel install restrictions (See: Florida). They even override your HOA. With regards to wood burning stoves, that's more of an insurance issue (homeowner's insurance providers do not care for wood burning stoves due to the fire risk).
- nesky 7y agoIf you've ever lived next door to someone who's had an high BTU wood burning stove you'll know why they have restrictions, I would never purchase property where a neighbor or someone close to the residence had one. Green energy source or not they're not something you want to live near unless you never open your windows or spend time outside, they stink.
- rayiner 7y agoI live next to someone who uses a wood stove. It smells nice.
- pizza 7y agoSome toxic air pollutants do smell quite nice https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-your-health https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-your-health
- mabbo 7y agoIt smells nice, but that nice smelling smoke isn't good for you. Your neighbor has a lovely fire, while doing health damage to you and your family.
- rayiner 7y agoThere’s so many things that cause “health damage” I just don’t care. People used to use wood stoves just fine. How bad could it be.
- lmm 7y agoPeople used to smoke everywhere too. IIRC the damage is about the same.
- DavidAdams 7y agohttps://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-globally-since-1770 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-globally-...
- kelnos 7y agoWait, what? How are wood-burning stoves considered "green"? They release tons of particulate matter into the air (health hazard, and I can't imagine that's good for the environment, either), are generally pretty dirty, don't scale, and require tons of labor (and deforestation) to feed.
- Glench 7y agoSaul said had a relative with forested land that he could cut sustainably to make up for the energy he couldn't quite get from rooftop solar of his SF home (if I recall correctly).